CCPR/C/125/D/2345/2014 3.5 The author further submits that, despite several requests from the Danish Refugee Council for a rapid decision due to his imminent forcible return, the Board did not make its decision until shortly before the forcible return. He refers to previous decisions of the Committee in this regard.9 3.6 In his subsequent submission of 30 November 2015, counsel informed the Committee that the author was claiming a violation of article 13 instead of article 14 of the Covenant. He argued, in particular, that the author’s risk of persecution and suffering of irreparable harm upon return to Afghanistan had not been assessed in accordance with the procedural guarantees of this article, since he was unable to appeal the decisions of the Board to a judicial body. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 11 August 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the author’s communication. 4.2 The State party recalls the facts on which the present communication is based and the author’s claims, and submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the State party submits that no provisions of the Covenant would be violated if the author were deported to Afghanistan. 4.3 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Board, which it considers to be an independent and quasi-judicial body,10 and the legal basis of its decisions.11 4.4 As to the admissibility of the communication, the State party argues that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility with respect to the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant since it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that his life will be in danger or that he will be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Afghanistan. The communication is therefore manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.5 The State party recalls that article 14 of the Covenant lays down the principle of due process, including the right to have access to the courts in the determination of a person’s rights and obligations in a suit at law. It follows from the Committee’s jurisprudence that proceedings relating to the expulsion of an alien do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1), but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 12 Against this background, the State party submits that asylum proceedings fall outside the scope of article 14 of the Covenant, and that this part of the communication should therefore be considered inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.6 On the merits, the State party submits that the author has not sufficiently established that his return to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The State party recalls in this regard that its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, under which a residence permit will be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he or she returned to his or her country of origin. 4.7 As far as the assessment of the author’s credibility is concerned, the State party refers to findings made by the Board in its decision of 16 January 2012 (see paras. 2.4–2.5 above). The State party submits that the Board’s decision under section 7 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act was made on the basis of a specific and individual assessment of the author’s asylum grounds combined with its background knowledge on the general situation in Afghanistan and the specific details of the case. Therefore, there is no basis for challenging the Board’s assessment that the author has failed to substantiate his grounds for asylum and 9 10 11 12 6 A.E. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/115/D/2320/2013) and M.A. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2240/2013). Ahmed et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. Aliens Act, sects. 7 (1)–(2) and 31 (1)–(2). X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 8.5.